Standing Committee F

[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]

Hunting Bill

Clause 8 - Tests for registration: utility and least suffering

Amendment proposed [14 January]: Amendment No. 94, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 11, after 'hunting', insert 'or coursing'.—[Mr. Gray.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Nicholas Soames: I speak in support of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and in support of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). I stress very strongly that coursing, whether competitive or not, must be subject to the same properly formulated tests that are applied to other types of hunting if the legislation is to be consistent. Moreover, the principles of utility and cruelty or least suffering should be constructed in such a way that the legal approach to animal welfare is logical, consistent and universal. The Bill fails on every count.
 An aspect of the debate that most worries us and all who take part in coursing is whether the Minister has truly studied and paid attention to the carefully written and well presented report of the National Coursing Club, which was sent to the Minister. I have a copy with me. I commend it to all Committee members for its clarity and the way that it sets out the arguments. It is a model of how to present a case of this type. 
 There is much ignorance about coursing and how it works. I particularly wish to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall)—the man who has forgotten his razor—who has the honour to have Altcar in his constituency. He described the way that the slippers let slip the greyhounds, but what he said was completely wrong. 
 Coursing is one of the most well regulated sports. An inspector is present at every coursing meeting to enforce strict rules. [Interruption.] The reaction of Government Members shows again that they have not studied the report or understood it. The inspector regulates the sport according to rules that are clearly set out. [Interruption.] I shall give way to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall).

Mike Hall: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to give way.

George Stevenson: Order. The hon. Gentleman was not seeking to intervene. However, we really do not need background noise.

Nicholas Soames: The hon. Member for Weaver Vale finds it very difficult to be quiet—the animal noises come naturally.
 The rules of hare coursing state clearly that the hare must be given 80 to 100 yards law—for those who do not understand the term, that is a space, or a gap—before the greyhounds are slipped. That rule, which extends the law and is enforced ruthlessly, was in fact instigated by the National Coursing Club entirely of its own volition. 
 I am not sure whether Government Members have any idea how many days of coursing there are a year or how the sport is organised. There are 23 coursing clubs in the country. They provide 90 to 100 days of coursing each year and only about 200 hares are actually killed. The object of coursing is not to kill the hare. I say that emphatically. The object is to test the skill of the dogs. 
 In many ways, coursing is similar to horse racing. Competitive coursing, as opposed to other types of coursing, is not a form of pest control. Every effort is made to prevent the death of the hare. It causes minimal, if any, suffering because the vast majority of hares escape and it has enormous utility in terms of conservation and the welfare of the hare as a species. Competitive coursing should be likened to horse racing: people assemble to observe marvellous animals compete, a social ambiance is established and enjoyed and every effort is made to prevent any injury to animal or human alike. 
 The Burns report clearly pointed out that coursing does not involve a long chase; the hare will normally escape after an average of about 40 seconds. From the welfare perspective, the Minister should compare coursing to field trials. I wonder whether he is aware what a field trial is. Will he tell me?

George Stevenson: Order. If the Minister wishes to respond or intervene, I am sure that he will.

Nicholas Soames: I am sure that the Minister will tell us about his extensive knowledge of field trials in his reply. Coursing is best compared to field trials, in which birds are put up and shot to test the skill of the gun dogs that are sent to retrieve them. Any argument for banning coursing would apply equally—this is the dangerous element of the Bill and it worries a great many of us—to field trials. By parity of reasoning, the argument would also apply to shooting and fishing. Coursing can also be compared to competition angling, in which the object is not to kill the fish. Again that is a favourable comparison from the welfare perspective. There are stages in hunting at which dogs that were hunting by scent begin to hunt by sight or, in other words, to course the fox. I saw a fox coursed the other day; it escaped very happily and satisfactorily. To distinguish dogs hunting by sight—coursing—from dogs hunting by scent is intellectual nonsense.
 Will the Minister explain how it is possible, logically speaking, to leave coursing out of the clause? We will return to the debate and go into matters in much greater detail when we discuss the wicked proposal for the abolition of coursing. Opposition Members think that excluding coursing from the clause is completely 
 illogical. I support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire.

Peter Luff: The Minister will remember that my greatest embarrassment at the Portcullis hearings was—

Peter Bradley: His tie.

Peter Luff: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to challenge my daughter's taste in ties—

George Stevenson: Ties?

Peter Luff: The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) mentioned my tie from a sedentary position. I am glad to see that he has a shred of decency left.
 The Minister will remember that my greatest embarrassment at the Portcullis hearings related to the subject of hares. I challenged Professor Stephen Harris as to why there are always plenty of hares where hunting and hare coursing take place and he replied that people would not go hare hunting and coursing where there were no hares. I remember being extremely embarrassed by that response, so I speak on the subject again with some trepidation. 
 The Middle Way Group has a clear view that if the tests have value, they should be applied to all types of hunting and coursing activities. That would not add greatly to the bureaucracy of the registrar's procedure. If the Minister is right about hare coursing, the registrar will find in his favour. We would be using an objective process, rather than a subjective one. I hope that the Minister will recognise the wisdom of the amendment.

Hugo Swire: I want to add a couple of remarks in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said. We have been in this situation before; national coursing has been the subject of about four inquiries over the years. Following my research, and having listened to the points made by the National Coursing Club, I can point out that that club has responded every time to the concerns raised. It has been an entirely responsible body, from which many people could learn a great deal.
 The Burns inquiry, as the Minister admitted—he will no doubt contradict me if this is not the case—failed to establish a link between coursing and cruelty. We have been told that coursing fails the Minister's utility criteria. No doubt we will argue about that in greater detail later, but will the Minister address, or at least comment on, various points that the National Coursing Club has made including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex mentioned, length of slip? In response to questions and concerns raised over the years, slippers are now encouraged to give the hare a far greater chance. Will the Minister comment on the building of soughs and on pickers-up? There has been an increase in the number of people, trained and subject to regulations, employed by the National Coursing Club along the length of the course to ensure that the hare is dispatched as quickly as possible. 
 All those measures suggest to me that the club is an entirely responsible body in its provision of sport and training for its dogs. Will the Minister deal with those questions?

Alun Michael: The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) suggests that the tests set out in the Bill should be applied to coursing, as to other activities. I can assure him that they have been, which is why coursing appears where it does in the Bill. I shall try to persuade him of that. Applying the tests to that activity leads to an inescapable conclusion.
 In response to the questions of the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), I can say that the National Coursing Club, in its response to the consultation, and representatives of other coursing organisations that I have met have been nothing but courteous in arguing their case. However, their responses have not undermined the conclusions of the Burns report, nor shown that their activity satisfies the tests or could do so. 
 In effect, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex asked us to set aside the tests as set out in clause 8, to give any activity a 50:50 chance of succeeding. That is not our purpose. The purpose of the principles in clause 8 is to enable certain questions to be answered. Is an activity necessary—does it have utility? If so, is it cruel or is an option that involves less suffering available that would bring about the purpose for which the activity is proposed? That sets a tough but fair challenge to those who say that their activity is necessary but not cruel—the claim made by those who support hunting. The clause takes such claims seriously and, like the Countryside Alliance, I believe that something that is cruel should not be undertaken. That is the starting point for considering coursing. 
 The amendment arises from either a misunderstanding of terminology or from muddled thinking—or perhaps a mixture of both.

James Gray: I am puzzled by the logic of the Minister's argument. Does he agree that hare coursing is one of only two things that may not be tested using the cruelty and utility tests? As drafted, the Bill says that that may not be considered by the registrar, but the Minister says that it will be.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. Applying the principles, as I will show in more detail in a moment, makes it clear that coursing cannot pass the tests in clause 8. Therefore, it would be futile to put the issue to the registrar or tribunal.

James Gray: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: It might be better if the hon. Gentleman waits to comment on the logic until after I have set it out.
 My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire correctly described coursing in his contribution, and the definitions used by coursing organisations support my view. I have looked again at the way in which Lord Burns summarised the evidence that he heard. As I have said, I have met a number of hare coursing organisations, which have not provided me with any information challenging or contradicting Lord Burns. 
 The Countryside Alliance asked me to take the conclusions of the Burns report as my starting point and not to reopen or restart the Burns inquiry. On hare coursing, paragraph 2.54 of the Burns report states: 
''Coursing by registered clubs takes place from 15 September to 10 March. The object is to test the skills of two greyhounds in a knock-out competition. Typically, a day's coursing will involve some 32 dogs competing against each other in a series of rounds, with the final two dogs challenging for a cup and a cash prize. A mounted judge awards dogs points for their speed and skill in making the hare turn. A maximum of one point is awarded in the event of a dog catching a hare.''
 Lord Burns also touches on illegal hare coursing in paragraph 2.57: 
''Illegal coursing is sometimes accompanied by threats or physical violence to landowners, leading some farmers and landowners to 'shoot out' hares in order to deter illegal coursers and poachers.''
 A number of hon. Members have mentioned the activities associated with illegal hare coursing.

Hugo Swire: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: Let me continue to set out what Lord Burns said and then I will happily give way.
 Paragraphs 6.67 to 6.69 of the Burns report state: 
''There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a hare of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds during hunting. We are satisfied, nevertheless, that although death and insensibility will normally follow within a matter of seconds, this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the hare.
We are similarly satisfied that being pursued, caught and killed by dogs during coursing seriously compromises the welfare of the hare. It is clear, moreover, that, if the dog or dogs catch the hare, they do not always kill it quickly. There can also sometimes be a significant delay, in 'driven' coursing, before the 'picker up' reaches the hare and dispatches it (if it is not already dead). In the case of 'walked up' coursing, the delay is likely to be even longer.
In the event of a ban on hunting and coursing hares, it seems likely that a few more would be shot than at present. There are concerns about the welfare implications of shooting hares because of wounding rates.''
 I have set out what Lord Burns said about coursing, but before I develop the argument I shall give way to the hon. Member for East Devon.

Hugo Swire: In a previous sitting, I referred to a gamekeeper who was obliged to come to a private arrangement with poachers because, in the rural area in which he was trying to operate his business, he was unable to deal with poaching and coursers due to the lack of rural police. Once, he called the police but they were not interested in coming.
 Interestingly, between February and December 2001, there was a de facto ban on coursing of any sort under the animal health regulations introduced due to foot and mouth disease. People who believe that a ban on coursing would lead to more convictions always mention that ban. Can the Minister tell us now or in a later sitting whether there was an increase in arrests and convictions for poaching during that period?

Alun Michael: I said that I would respond separately on the issues raised by hon. Members on illegal hare coursing, which is a subject that I want coherently to approach. I am trying to deal with the form of hare coursing that is legal. On foot and mouth
 disease, one of the concerns was that, whereas law-abiding organisations were not undertaking activities, there were people who disregarded the law and in some cases continued their activities. It is a mixed picture. Part of the problem is that there were few arrests, because of the weakness of the police powers. I shall come to that point when I have dealt with the hare coursing that is legal at present.
 We discovered during the hearings at Portcullis house that there are varied uses of the word ''coursing'', which may be where some of the confusion arises. I clarified that as far as I could during those the hearings and I refer hon. Members to the record. I also spoke to a number of people in the margins. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire employed the colloquial use of ''coursing'' found in some parts of the country when speaking to his amendment. In that colloquial expression there may be a difference between whether the dog is hunting or coursing, but the person using the dog is hunting the animal being chased. In a competition, the person is not hunting, although the dog is. What the hon. Gentleman at one stage described as coursing with long dogs is hunting, which would need to be registered under the Bill to continue as an activity. The definitions in the Bill are clear, and I invite Opposition Members to look at them. 
 As the hon. Member for North Wiltshire has taken a keen interest in the correspondence that I have sent out and I set out the questions on coursing clearly in it. In the letter that I sent out in May, I said that the legal advice was that coursing was not hunting and I asked the questions: 
''Do you consider that there is a utility case for hare coursing for conservation reasons, or pest control purposes, or in order to deter poaching? What conditions should apply and what evidence do you have to support your view?''
 I asked people whether there was a necessity for the activity. I went out of my way to give everyone the opportunity to make their case before I came to conclusions. I thought it important to do so. 
 The consistent application of the two principles of utility and cruelty is as follows. Coursing cannot satisfy the utility test because, as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said, the intention of coursing is not to kill or to catch animals—not to have utility. If people call other activities coursing that are hunting within the definition of the Bill, that is covered by the Bill, but it is hare hunting, not hare coursing. The Bill makes that clear.

Peter Luff: I invite the Minister to reflect on the possibility that his utility definition may be amended, if not in the Committee, certainly in another place, and then hare coursing might pass the new utility test. The Minister is debating his definition of utility, which could be challenged on a later group of amendments.

Alun Michael: I am working with the definition of cruelty in the Bill. [Hon. Members: ''Utility.''] Utility and comparative suffering. I argue that the definitions in the Bill are the right ones. I have been prepared to discuss with colleagues whether there is scope for fine tuning, but I believe that in general those tests are right
 and fair and that, against those tests, coursing cannot succeed.

James Gray: We shall come back to whether coursing would fulfil the term ''utility'', as drafted in the Bill. I suspect that it can be demonstrated that hares damage crops, so there may be a utility argument there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire said, we will return to the question of sport or recreation. My question is more direct and important.
 The Minister appears not to understand—I want to know whether he does—the difference between what he described a moment ago as coursing using long dogs, which would still be registrable and allowable under the Bill, and hare hunting. What is the difference between the two?

Alun Michael: I referred to the phrase that the hon. Gentleman used. It was not my choice of words. Coursing with long dogs was the hon. Gentleman's usage in his earlier contribution. I was pointing out to him that in the Bill that is hunting, not coursing. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have understood. If he examines the definitions on websites and in contributions from coursing organisations, he will see that the activity is defined in terms consistent with those used in the Bill, which I am using in my contribution.

James Gray: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that two entirely different activities are being described as hare hunting? There is the use of long dogs by sight, and the use of beagles, which is actually hare hunting. Both activities involve the hunting of hares and are registrable, but they are different. Hare hunting using beagles is proper hunting, but coursing involving long dogs to catch hares is a different activity.

Alun Michael: The point is that legally, both are hunting. Therefore, the question is, are they necessary? Do they satisfy the test of utility? If they do, do they provide the method of achieving that utility that involves the least suffering? In other words, do they satisfy the test of not being cruel? If they satisfy those tests, those who wish to eradicate cruelty would regard them as acceptable. If they do not satisfy those tests, they are cruel and logically would be turned down on the basis of the evidence. The process is simple. The Bill is designed to deal with cruelty and activities that have no utility cannot satisfy the utility test.
 I invite the hon. Gentleman to examine the definition of coursing. He will see that it is consistent with the definition of coursing given by coursing organisations. It follows the definition provided in the Burns report, which those in favour of hunting have asked me to take as the starting point. Therefore, the way that we are dealing with the matter is consistent, as is the way that we apply the two tests to coursing. That is why it appears where it does in the Bill. It should appear at that point. It would be nonsense to admit it to the clause in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Nicholas Soames: I congratulate the Minister on the way that he is sticking to his principles like a leech, and
 quite right too. What weight does he give in utility to one of the factors on which his Department is extremely hot—and very good in many ways—which is, the important question of conservation? Does he accept that it is beyond doubt that where there is hare hunting and coursing, strong, vigorous and large numbers of the species are retained? They are kept for coursing, but are part of a conservation and management programme. Surely that is part of utility.

Alun Michael: I regard conservation as extremely important. The Department encourages it and so do I. It is not relevant to the test set out in clause 8. Various activities have side effects and economic benefits. However, the question concerns the tests that should be applied to activities that involve setting one animal, or group of animals, on another animal, or group of animals. That test is needed to ensure proper and consistent legislation and is set out in clause 8. It is the application of the tests in clause 8 that leads to the inescapable conclusion that hare coursing cannot satisfy the tests, and therefore, cannot continue.

Hugo Swire: Will the Minister give way?

Nicholas Soames: Will the Minister give way? [Interruption.]

George Stevenson: To which hon. Gentleman does the Minister want to give way?

Alun Michael: The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex.

Nicholas Soames: The larger one.
 The Minister has extensively and correctly quoted from Lord Burns. Does he accept that Lord Burns makes the point forcibly that the banning of coursing would have a serious effect on the conservation of hares?

Alun Michael: Perhaps it would be well if we examined the conclusion reached by Lord Burns. In paragraph 5.94 he says:
''There is little or no need to control overall hare numbers and, indeed, they are a Biodiversity Action Plan species.''
 He says that the distribution of hares is uneven; they are abundant in some parts of the country and not in others. He goes on to state: 
''Hare hunting and coursing are essentially carried out for recreational purposes and have a relatively small direct impact on hare numbers. A ban would therefore have little effect in practice on agriculture or other interests.''
 He then compares the impact of hare hunting, shooting and so on. That essentially deals with the argument of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, which I accept was a serious one. 
 Another amendment suggests that the definition in clause 8(1) should be expanded. It is possible to choose a different definition or to expand, or contract, this one. However, having given the matter considerable thought, I believe that the test is right as it stands. Of course, the amendment falls for debate by the Committee in due course, and the hon. Gentleman may make his point then. 
 The tests to be applied are set out in clauses 8(1) and 8(2). It is clear that hare coursing cannot satisfy the utility test. Therefore, I oppose its being included in this part of the Bill.

Hugo Swire: Having carefully listened to the Minister this morning and during the past few days, I am still not sure whether his aim in banning organised coursing is to deny pleasure to thousands of people or to save the lives of about 200 hares a year.
 However, on conservation, the Minister wants to be careful that in banning coursing he does not unbalance the conservation of the hare population. He and his colleagues who study such things will know that any successful animal or environmental conservation programme must involve an incentive for the human. One has only to consider places such as Africa for examples of that.

George Stevenson: Order. The hon. Member is making a speech. He may catch my eye if he wishes to, but interventions should be short, sweet and to the point.

Alun Michael: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman returned to the section of Burns to which I have referred. He will see that his conclusion is totally contradicted by Lord Burns. He asks whether I want to save the lives of numbers of hares or to prevent people's enjoyment. Neither of those are material considerations. The consideration is whether the activity has utility, which, by definition, it does not, and whether it is the cruel. Does the method of achieving utility, which the activity does not have, involve the least suffering? It is absolutely clear what we have to do about coursing.
 The hon. Member for North Wiltshire referred to listening to people. He suggested that I should listen to a variety of organisations with which he has sympathy. I have tried to listen to everyone. I have listened to organisations whose conclusions I thought might not satisfy the test, against the possibility that they might. I have had an open-door and open-ear policy from the beginning of the consultation and have sought to give everyone an opportunity to make their case. 
 The hon. Gentleman continually refers to Government Members who listen to animal welfare organisations. Many of my hon. Friends have done what I have done: yes, we have listened to animal welfare organisations, but we have also listened to the Countryside Alliance, land managers and farmers. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might come to a more balanced view if he included animal welfare organisations on his list so that he, too, could listen to all the arguments that can be reasonably made on the issue.

James Gray: Will the Minister remind me of any occasion on which I suggested that Government Members ought to listen?

Alun Michael: At one point, the hon. Gentleman gave a list of organisations to which he thought Government Members listened and, earlier, he gave a list of organisations to which he was listening. If he checks Hansard, he will see that he assumed that Government Members were listening to animal welfare organisations only, whereas he made it clear that the Countryside Alliance, which puts out his press releases, and organisations associated with it are the only organisations to which he has listened. I have listened to everyone and I commend that approach—one often learns a great deal.

Peter Bradley: Has the Minister listened to, among others, the Bishop of Hereford, who has been quoted by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) as a moral authority? The bishop said:
''I have no brief at all for hare coursing, and I hope very much that it will be abolished. It is not an authentically rural pursuit, and it seems to be carried out mainly for the sake of gambling which takes place on it.''

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a strong argument, which may well persuade some Opposition Members. I am arguing from the evidence in the Burns report, but I have listened to the views of a number of bishops, whose comments and contributions should not be ruled out.

Nicholas Soames: I am all for listening to bishops on issues on which they are qualified to express a view. I have been coursing on many occasions and have never seen a bishop having a punt, although I have seen the Bishop of Hereford out hunting. I was impressed by the fair way in which the Minister conducted the hearings. When decisions are being taken, it is important that people feel that they have had their day in court. However, he must acknowledge that experienced, knowledgeable organisations such as the National Gamekeepers Organisation know what they are talking about. The National Coursing Club feels that, although he listened to it, he has not paid any attention to what it said, which is a problem in the drafting of the legislation.

Alun Michael: That is always a problem. If one listens to people and takes them seriously, it does not necessarily mean that having considered their arguments one has to agree with them. When people feel that someone has not agreed with them, it may be a reasonable judgment on what they have said. In any hearing in which one hears both sides' views, one must come to a judgment at the end of the listening period. I have many years' experience sitting in a court as a magistrate, and it can be lonely. In a court, one has to take a decision; in this case, I have had to take decisions and make judgments on all the evidence that I have heard. I have brought my conclusions into Committee and I am prepared to argue why I have reached them, which is the process in which we are engaged.

Tony Banks: In view of the interventions and sedentary comments, does my right hon. Friend agree that bishop-bashing is a very unpleasant and unnatural practice?

Alun Michael: It is clear that a number of Members want to engage in selective listening. It is also clear that a bishop's views, which were set out by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin in an intervention, do not persuade the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex. However, his right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal was keen to hear the views of bishops. We need to consider the evidence, argument and logic behind what the Bill actually says.
 Hunting is defined in clause 45(2), and that definition covers the activities referred to by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire as coursing with long dogs. Hare coursing is defined in clause 7(3), and that 
 definition covers the competitive events to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire and others referred. The intentions in the Bill are clear and consistent. I reiterate that the language used in the Bill reflects the language used in the Burns report and by organisations that support coursing.

Peter Bradley: A couple of days ago, Opposition Members were quoting the bishop as the moral authority on this issue. They seem to be able to listen, acknowledge and endorse evidence with which they agree while ignoring or condemning evidence with which they do not. That casts an interesting light on the selectiveness of their evidence.

Alun Michael: Clearly, different Opposition Members are going to different sources for their opinions. There is nothing wrong with that. This is free-vote territory. Hon. Members are entitled to look where they wish for support for their views. My argument is that the logic of the situation, the clear definitions in the Bill and the clear conclusions of the Burns report lead to an inescapable conclusion, which is why I have set out the Bill as I have.

Hugo Swire: It is clear from what the Minister is saying that the National Coursing Club has failed to persuade him of its arguments, which it presented very coherently. His hearings in Portcullis house were fair, but given the fact that he used to want to ban hunting of all sorts, can he tell us whether any of the professional bodies whose evidence he heard have swayed his opinions or beliefs in any way? Indeed, has he changed his mind on any single factor of any sort since the Burns inquiry and the Portcullis house hearings?

Alun Michael: Yes, a number of things influenced my thinking during the course of the evidence. I sought more evidence on some matters if I was not clear or if doubts were raised in my mind.
 On Tuesday, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex mentioned birds. The hon. Member for East Devon will see that an amendment deals with that issue. I have also discussed it with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation because a serious point was made that had to be dealt with. One tries to get any legislation right at the beginning, but improvements can be made. 
 When we discussed the phrasing of clause 8, I said that the definitions could be improved without the integrity of the Bill or the principles on which it was based being affected. So, yes, I have been listening. My approach from the beginning was to say, ''I know what my views have been when, as an individual Member of this House, I have been asked to cast my vote''. We all have form on that of one sort or another. I said, as one does when one sits as a magistrate or undertakes any semi-judicial responsibility, ''I stand back from my personal views. I listen to all the evidence. I listen to what everybody has to say.'' 
 I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex for saying that the hearings were fair. That was because the organisations involved, both for and against hunting, were willing to engage. It was not 
 just down to me; it was the fact that everybody was willing to listen to everybody else in a democratic and constructive way. That has helped. It has certainly helped me when I have listened to the arguments put forward by various organisations, passionately for or passionately against certain activities. That enabled me to draft a Bill that has rightly been described as tough but fair. That is what I seek to be.

Nicholas Soames: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is being extremely indulgent.
 I want to clarify the point about the Bishop of Hereford. I am sure that he is an admirable man. Indeed, I went to a wedding once where one of his predecessors was half an hour late because he had been cub hunting. Therefore, I am very much in favour of bishops of Hereford. 
 Does the Minister accept that the hon. Member for The Wrekin said that the bishop was against hare coursing because people had bets on greyhounds? As I understood it, that had nothing to do with disliking coursing, but the Church—and this is where it tends to get it wrong—objects to people whom it thinks do not have enough money having a punt.

Alun Michael: As I understood my hon. Friend, he was putting forward the expressed view of someone who had been quoted earlier by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal that Conservative Members should think again. That seemed to be the import of my hon. Friend's contribution. I heard what he said and I hope that Opposition Members heard it too. It is for the Bishop of Hereford to make his views clear if he wants to. As with the Burns report, there is a danger of selective quotation.

Peter Bradley: For the sake of clarity, I am happy to provide the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex with the address of the Bishop of Hereford. The letter was written in the context of animal welfare and I shall repeat the first phrase:
''I have no brief at all for hare coursing''.

Alun Michael: I am grateful for that clarification

Gregory Barker: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: I shall give way for the last time because I want to move from hare coursing that is legal at present to illegal hare coursing.

Gregory Barker: Could I bring the Minister back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon? He gave an extensive reply to my hon. Friend that did not answer the question. Following the extensive submissions to the Minister and the hearings over which he presided, will he give a specific, material example of where he has shifted his position as a result of any of those hearings and submissions?

Alun Michael: I just did. I gave an example in relation to birds affected by the Bill, which is the very issue raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex during our debate on Tuesday.

George Stevenson: Order. I am becoming a little concerned that we are touching the same base again and again. It is important to have the Bishop of
 Hereford's opinions, but we have established those, so perhaps we could move on.

Alun Michael: The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) asked for an example of where I had changed my mind or thought that the Bill could be improved and I have given him that example. We shall discuss the issues as we come to them throughout the Bill. I see, Mr. Stevenson, that if I go any further I shall be called to order.
 On illegal hare coursing, the problem is that trespass, not the activity, is the illegality, but considerable nuisance is associated with the activity. I sought views from the police and a number of senior officers told me that the way in which the Bill is drafted and the powers it provides would give them the necessary tools to be able to deal with illegal hare coursing. There is no doubt that it involves a nuisance and I shall quote some police officers who made their views known. One stated: 
''Illegal hare coursing has been of major significance for the Rural Farming Community''
 in our county 
''for a number of years and at certain times of the year, a visible increase in calls for help to the Police . . . occurs''.
 Another officer commented: 
''One of the problems the police face is trying to tackle modern criminals driving high performance 4x4 vehicles with outdated legislation which was introduced in the day when the motor vehicle was merely an idea and the horse and trap was too expensive for the 'run of the mill' poacher/courser. Updated legislation is now needed to tackle what has become big business with often, large sums of money exchanging hands on a 'best dog wins' basis.''
 Another senior police officer stated: 
''getting a prosecution is difficult in that you have to prove who owns the dog and which dog was seen to catch which hare. This practice should be banned-it should be an offence for any person when not near his place of abode to be on any farm land without permission and have with him not on a lead a dog capable of being used for the purpose of hare coursing or deer poaching.''
 Another officer stated: 
''With the possibility of legislation being introduced regarding hunting with dogs may I suggest that this is an opportune time to make representation to have included police powers to cover the above.
The powers should be along the lines . . . that it would be an 'arrestable offence, with a greater than now penalty, for trespassing in pursuit of game'.
The power of arrest, without condition, is important as it will give greater powers to Police to deal with such matters and provide a useful deterrent to the perpetrators.
A further greater deterrent to offenders would be the ability to seize the dogs used or suspected of being used for poaching.''
 Those strong views were reinforced by another officer who stated: 
''There is little criminal legislation to control this activity. Whilst there may be breaches of Poaching Laws (depending on the circumstances), the penalties are nominal and cases difficult to prove. Problems usually occur when landowners/employees challenge these mass trespassers and we get involved!
Looking at the picture overall my view is that the best way forward would be to make 'illegal' coursing a specific criminal offence under new legislation or alternatively . . . bring in a complete ban on hunting hares with dogs.''
 That would give the clarity that the police need to deal with the matter. In my experience of the criminal justice system, one problem is that sometimes activities are banned but the bureaucracy that is necessary to achieve a prosecution, or the obstacles in the way of protecting the public, make it difficult or unreasonably time consuming for the police to tackle them. This is a case in point. The powers given to the police under the Bill will enable them to deal with the nuisance and the pernicious activities that are associated with illegal hare coursing. That will be of great benefit to a variety of rural communities. 
 I am not suggesting that people who take part in legal activities are lawbreakers or have disregard for the law, but those who take part in illegal hare coursing certainly are lawbreakers. As well as making a clear judgment on the basis of clear principles as to whether coursing, as defined by Burns and the organisations themselves, should be allowed, the Bill will also have the positive benefit of giving the police the tools to do the job of protecting local rural communities from the activities of illegal hare coursers, which were described so tellingly by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire and by the police officers whose comments I have reported.

Hugo Swire: The Minister quoted selectively from a few police officers; I am sure that, given time, I could find some police officers who would say that catching poachers in that way is not a priority because of the lack of resources. The Minister promised that, at this point in his speech, he would answer my question. During the foot and mouth disease outbreak, under animal health regulations anyone found coursing could be arrested and punished with a heavy fine. Can he tell me how many more convictions for poaching there were when the police had those powers?

Alun Michael: No, but that is not surprising. During that period, the police had to undertake activities that were as onerous to them as they were to other people who were involved in the rural community. Police powers for dealing with illegal hare coursing are completely inadequate. The challenges and tests that need to be satisfied make the job extremely bureaucratic. The hon. Member for East Devon said that he might be able to find police officers who have other views. I would be surprised, because I have heard consistent views from police officers over a long period of time.

Michael Foster: In the Minister's assessment, would a 20 per cent. cut in police budgets help or hinder police to deal with illegal hare coursers?

Alun Michael: It is clear that the police and everyone else would be in a dire situation if Conservative Members were in government. However, that is unlikely so I will treat it as a hypothetical, which I fortunately do not need to deal with. This Government were the first to recognise the needs of rural police forces. I am pleased to say that I was deputy Home Secretary at the time when we began research on the problems of rurality. I am pleased that the present Home Secretary is making £30 million available a year to enable rural police forces to deal with rural policing issues. I applaud that.
 Of course, the police are always keen to have additional resources. They are stretched and they have a challenging job. At the moment, it is pretty well impossible for them to deal with illegal hare coursing. The provisions of the Bill will make it possible for them to deal with illegal hare coursing. It is acknowledged in a variety of counties that there is a need for a strategy and action to protect the community from such activities. That is another benefit, although it is a side effect in a sense. It is a consequence of the Bill, but it is not what it was intended to deal with. However, it is a benefit of the Bill that should be applauded. I therefore commend the Bill as drafted, and I resist the hon. Gentleman's amendment.

James Gray: The amendment has nothing to do with the Bill's ability to deal with illegal hare coursing. We will return to that part of the Bill.
 It was interesting to see the Minister suddenly find himself on sure ground. He thought that he could speak with conviction to the Committee and say that illegal hare coursing, or poaching as I have tried to call it, is obviously a bad thing and that we must strengthen police powers. I suspect that the Opposition would entirely agree with him. That certainty was different to the lack of certainty that he demonstrated in the earlier parts of the speech. 
 On the last part of the Minister's speech on illegal hare coursing, I have rarely had a more blinding glimpse of the obvious than when he said that he wanted to make it absolutely plain to the Committee that legal hare coursing would remain legal, but illegal hare coursing was against the law. That is what he said, and the record tomorrow will demonstrate it. I am delighted to hear that legal hare coursing will remain legal and illegal hare coursing will remain illegal, but I am not sure that the Committee's time should have been taken up by that obvious point. [Interruption.] The Minister looks puzzled. It will be in Hansard tomorrow. He may well have made a slip of the tongue, but that is what he said.

Alun Michael: I have more confidence in Hansard than the hon. Gentleman's misinterpretation of what I said.

James Gray: It may well be that, as is their common practice, the spin doctors will be round to the Hansard reporters this evening to correct some inadvertent error.

Russell Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I have given the hon. Gentleman due warning that I have no intention of taking any interventions from him at all because he is a Scot and has no business to be here talking about hare coursing.

George Stevenson: Order. The hon. Gentleman has as much right as any other elected Member to be here, and I am sure that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire knows that.

James Gray: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) has every right to sit there, Mr. Stevenson. However, during an earlier sitting when Mrs. Roe was in the Chair, we had an extensive debate on the matter. The Opposition took the view that as he is here to speak for his Scottish constituency, we will not give way to him during debates.

Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Do you agree that although the hon. Gentleman may choose whether to accede to an attempt to intervene by any individual on either side, and can make that judgment himself, he is not entitled to call in question the right of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries to be a member of the Committee and participate fully in its proceedings?

George Stevenson: I have made the position of the Chair clear on that, and I wish to return to the amendment.

James Gray: The Minister is wrong. I was not deigning to take sides or questioning the hon. Gentleman's legitimacy. He is here legitimately, but I have no intention of taking any interventions from him. I thought that the Chair and the Minister might find it helpful to know that that is our plan.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: We have just started. I would like to move on to the meat of the topic. If the hon. Gentleman promises not to jump up too often—he is quite a modest intervener—I will happily give way.

Rob Marris: A moment ago, before we got into the Scottish question, the hon. Gentleman alleged that hon. Members had been trying to interfere with the official record kept by Hansard. Would he kindly produce some evidence of that serious allegation?

James Gray: I made no such allegation. I said ''spin doctors'', not ''hon. Members''. Regardless, the matter is beyond the subject of the debate.

George Stevenson: I am grateful for that last comment, because we need to get back to the amendment.

James Gray: This debate on hare coursing has been a useful curtain raiser for the much more substantive debate that we will have on clause 7. After all, we are discussing only whether the tests of utility and cruelty should be applied to hare coursing, not whether hare coursing has some form of utility, which it may or may not, or whether it is cruel, which it may or may not be. We will debate those matters properly under clause 7. The debate today and on Tuesday should have been purely about whether it is right to include coursing in the utility and cruelty tests.
 I pay tribute to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex and of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), who speaks with knowledge of the subject, although his conclusion is exactly the opposite of mine. However, an interesting aspect of the debate is that there have been no precise answers to several questions about hare coursing. 
 Does hare coursing cause more or less suffering than hare hunting? I suspect that the Minister, from what he said a moment ago, does not know the 
 difference between hare coursing and hare hunting using beagles or long dogs. Is hunting a better method of killing hares? We do not know. Is coursing muzzled better or worse than coursing unmuzzled? We had an interesting debate on that on Tuesday. There is a distinct lack of clarity on whether a muzzled dog beating a hare to death is better than killing it with an unmuzzled dog. That is an interesting area for debate and one on which I would like to hear the opinions of vets. We are not entirely clear about it. 
 Does hare coursing have pest control utility? Are we trying to reduce the number of hares? Does it have biodiversity and landscape utility, or a sport and recreation utility? As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire said a moment ago, we will return to sport and recreation as having possible utility under the definitions in the Bill. How many hares would be shot if coursing were banned? Is shooting more or less cruel than coursing? Again, there are different opinions on those questions. 
 The important point is that there is no clarity. We are not in agreement on such matters—even people on the same side of the argument do not agree. Therefore, it seems that the Minister, having come to the clear conclusion that organised, competitive hare coursing is wicked—he did not explain why—has not been listening to the debate.

Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman lists several questions. There are very simple answers to most if not all of them. He asked whether we were trying to increase or decrease the number of hares. The Government's biodiversity strategy clearly shows that we want to double the numbers of hares. What is the difference between hare coursing and hare hunting? Hares are usually transported to the coursing area, whereas they are not transported for hunting. There are answers to each of his questions, if he is prepared to look for them.

Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I am afraid that that last claim is completely untrue. For the clarification of the Committee—

George Stevenson: Order. I hesitate to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, but whether a statement is accurate is not a point of order.

James Gray: The point that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) makes is, of course, entirely untrue. There is no evidence that hares are transported for coursing as conducted in England—they are local to the course. All one has to do is go to Altcar for the Waterloo cup to see that.
 I would rather not pursue that matter, because the debate, which is interesting—what with people leaping up and down—is not about whether hare coursing is cruel. The hon. Member for West Ham clearly thinks that it is. We are not discussing whether it has utility. Some people think that it has and others do not. It is a matter for debate, but this is not the moment for that debate. We are debating whether hare coursing and other activities that I shall discuss should be considered by the registrar, who should apply the cruelty and utility tests to them.

Michael Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: As long as the intervention is purely on the issue addressed in amendment No. 94: whether hare coursing should be subject to the tests. If it is on something else, I may be more restrained about giving way later in my speech.

Michael Foster: The hon. Gentleman said that there was no evidence of the transportation of hares to hare coursing events, which relates to the amendment. Can I refer him to evidence presented to Lord Burns by Charles Banning of the Countryside Alliance? In discussing the alliance's experience of ''where hares are transported'', he said:
''I would say that it is in a minority of cases; on my count not more than 7 of the 24 greyhound clubs have been involved in transporting hares''.
 Clearly, transporting hares does take place.

James Gray: There is a very important and delicate discussion to be had, which is at the centre of the Bill; is it right for hare coursing and stag hunting to be considered privately by the Minister and banned outright, or should they be considered by the registrar under clause 8? That is the particular, precise matter currently under discussion. The hon. Member for Worcester was referring to transportation in Northern Ireland, but we will return to that later. That is not relevant at all to amendment No. 94, which is directed precisely at the consideration of whether coursing should be banned outright, which the Minister has chosen to do, or whether the registrar and tribunal should have the opportunity to consider that difficult matter.
 I must make it clear to the Committee that it would be unhelpful, as we are discussing delicate, legal matters, to allow the debate to degenerate into a discussion of whether hare coursing is cruel or has utility. That is not the purpose of the debate. That debate will occur when we discuss clause 7.

Alun Michael: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Burns report deals with transporting hares in paragraph 7.27. He keeps saying that I have considered the matter privately. I have, in fact, considered it very publicly. I have allowed everyone the opportunity to make their points and have then come to a conclusion. My conclusion is that, by their own definition, hare coursers cannot satisfy the test of utility set out in clause 8(1). That is very simple and straightforward.

James Gray: The Minister says that the matter is very simple and straightforward. I apologise to him if I suggested that he had considered it privately. He is right that the Portcullis house hearings and other discussions have been very useful. The Minister has been listening, and I have never suggested for a second that he has not been. He has certainly been hearing carefully, if not listening so carefully. He has been out and about and people have had the opportunity to go and see him. I have been in his office for discussions with him, as has the Countryside Alliance and others. By no stretch of the imagination would I suggest that he has acted on this matter privately; if I did say those words, I apologise.
 The curious conundrum is that no matter how much consultation the Minister carries out, he appears here to have overturned the fundamental principle that he laid down in Portcullis house; namely that the hunting of all species of mammals should be considered by the registrar using the cruelty and utility tests. He has concluded that competitive hare coursing of the kind that takes place at the Waterloo cup and deer hunting are so obviously wicked and disgraceful that he can make the unilateral decision—without reference to the registrar or tribunal and without offering the opportunity to go to the High Court on a point of law—that they must be banned outright. Incidentally, he has also decided that rabbiting and ratting should be allowed, without any reference to the registrar. I shall return to that point in a moment. 
 Amendment No. 94 aims to point out that fundamental intellectual illogicality in the Bill and the fact that the Minister has decided to ban hare coursing. He says that he laid out the precise reasons for that in his speech, and has made much use of the expression ''incontrovertible evidence'' with regard to deer hunting. He has said that there is incontrovertible evidence that deer hunting must be banned and presumably he thinks that there is incontrovertible evidence that hare coursing has no utility, or is too cruel, because he has chosen to ban that. Through amendment No. 94, we are saying simply that the Minister, rather than arrogantly coming to that decision himself, should give the registrar and tribunal—and, beyond those, the High Court—the opportunity to consider the matter.

Peter Luff: Surely the other problem, over which the Minister skated in response to my intervention, is that he has defined the utility test too harshly and unreasonably. The Minister gave no indication in his earlier consultations that he would be so harsh and so restrictive. The provision must be relaxed. It will be relaxed in the other place, and then hare coursing should have its day in court. Hare coursing should not be ruled out arbitrarily by the Minister as a result of his own arbitrary tests.

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I understand that some Labour Members may not like clause 8 at all, but if we are to have it and the tests of cruelty and utility, it must be up to the registrar and the tribunal—and ultimately, perhaps, the High Court—to consider the legality of the terms laid out, the application of the criteria and the definitions of cruelty and utility. The Minister has chosen to say, ''I know what they are. I don't want to know what the registrar thinks. I don't want to know what the tribunal thinks. I don't want to know what English law thinks. I don't want to know what the High Court thinks. I don't want to know what anybody thinks. I have decided in my wisdom, and I have incontrovertible evidence, that these things are cruel and/or have no utility, and they will be banned outright, irrespective of the central principle of the Bill, which is to consider them together.''
 In saying that, the Minister has landed himself in two or three technical difficulties, but they are difficulties that are worth teasing out in Committee. The first is whether hunting and coursing are the same thing or different things. The Minister said that clause 7 contains some kind of definition of coursing. Subsection (3) says: 
''A 'hare-coursing event' is a competition in which dogs are, by the use of live hares, assessed as to skill in hunting hares.''
 That is the Minister's definition of coursing. That defines one kind of coursing; roughly 90 meetings a year with some 200 hares killed. Competitive coursing might be a better description. However, that is a small part of the art or skill of the sport of hare coursing. 
 Most hare coursing is not organised, but is done privately; a person takes out a couple of dogs to go coursing on his own land, or on land that he rents or can use by agreement with the landowner. It is a reasonable, legitimate and legal activity. Under the Bill, that person would still be able to go to the registrar and say, ''I want to take my long dogs out. I want to hunt hares on my own land'', or on his own estate or a neighbouring estate, and the registrar would decide whether the application was fair. He would ask, ''Is it cruel?'' Perhaps it is; perhaps it is not. He would listen to what we have said today. ''Does it have utility?'' Perhaps it does; perhaps it does not. But it will be the registrar who decides whether the person can go hunting. The only thing that the Minister wants to ban is organised coursing such as occurs in the Waterloo cup at Altcar. For some reason, he has chosen not to restrict private coursing. 
 The curiosity in that is that schedule 1 to the Bill, which contains the exemptions, specifies that if dogs are used for the purpose of getting food for human consumption, that activity may be exempt from the Bill. Whether that would stand up in the courts we do not know, but there is an argument that if one is using long dogs to hunt hares to eat, which is by far the largest usage for private coursing—it tends to be done by gamekeepers and others who go out to catch a hare to put in the pot—that is an exempt activity. The person would not even have to go to the registrar. He simply has to demonstrate that he is catching the hare to eat it, because that is an exempt activity. 
 Here we have a strange situation. The Minister has chosen to ban outright an activity that takes place, for example, in the Waterloo cup. If a private individual wants to go out on his own land and use his own dogs to chase hares, that may be allowed by the registrar. If, however, he can prove that he intends to eat the product of his activity, it may be exempt. 
 There is an even more bizarre conundrum at the heart of the Bill. One is allowed to use two dogs to chase a hare if one believes it to be wounded. I abhor the activity that I am about to describe, but it is theoretically possible. I could go out with a gun, seek to wound the hare, or pretend that I had wounded it. I may have shot at it, but not know whether it was wounded. It then would be perfectly legal under the Bill—without any licence, application to the registrar or discussion with the Minister—to put my long dogs on to a hare that I believe may have been wounded. 
 We are dealing with an activity that kills hardly any hares. Its aim is not to kill hares; participants try not to. The number of hares killed has been reduced substantially in the past 20 years. Roughly speaking, 116 hares have been killed so far this season; a very small number. Shooting, on the other hand, kills quite a large number. An activity, the aim of which is to avoid killing hares, would be banned. However, an activity carried out by a private individual that aims to kill them might be registered. If people can demonstrate that they are doing it for the pot, or that the hare has been wounded, they are allowed to do it. 
 That brings me on to the difficult subject of illegal coursing. Let us imagine the following situation. The coursers realise that they have to seek to wound, or pretend to have wounded, the hare in order to be exempt from the Bill. That would mean the thugs going out from Liverpool and elsewhere, from the towns to the countryside, to take part. The hon. Member for West Lancashire mentioned the tower blocks in Liverpool. That is why I picked up on it, but they no doubt come from other towns as well.

Colin Pickthall: We have a tremendous problem with illegal hare coursing in West Lancashire, and quite a few people have been caught and prosecuted for it. They have all come from Greater Manchester.

James Gray: I give my sincerest apologies to Liverpool. The hon. Gentleman will have to explain himself to Greater Manchester. In any event, those thugs going out from the tower blocks to participate in illegal coursing, which we all deplore, would realise that if they took a gun with them and sought to wound the hare—or if they demonstrated that they might have wounded the hare—their activity would be more likely to be legal than that of the people going to Altcar to attend the Waterloo cup. That is an absolute absurdity. People who are in any case guilty of intimidation of the worst kind are all of a sudden, thanks to the terms of the Bill, incentivised to carry a gun. I can think of no more perverse outcome of any Bill passed in this place, and the Minister might like to reflect on that.
 Perhaps that is an extreme point, but the main point is simpler. The Bill is perverse in seeking to ban an activity that is perfectly reasonable, sensible and legitimate. It allows the registrar to come to his own decision about the second most legitimate activity of private coursing, which is a perfectly sensible and useful activity in the countryside. The registrar can make up his mind about that based on the dual tests of cruelty and utility. However, under the Bill, illegal coursing would become easier.

Alun Michael: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting the Bill quite extensively. I am sure that that is not his intention. He referred to the stalking and flushing out exemption. One can use dogs to stalk and flush out hare, but one must shoot the hare as soon as it is flushed out and keep dogs under close control to prevent them from catching the hare. The sort of problems that he suggests might arise as a consequence of the Bill are anticipated and dealt with. Schedule 1(7)(7) provides that one cannot use the exemption in a case where one has harmed an animal deliberately. The hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting
 the Bill to create theoretical situations that would not apply, and would not be created by the Bill.

James Gray: The Minister's clarification is extremely helpful. At the moment, one can use dogs to flush out animals in order to kill them with the dogs. Under the Bill, one could use those same dogs only for flushing out the hare if one were going to shoot it. In other words, there would be a greater incentive to carry a gun when taking part in such activities than there is presently. At the moment, one can use the dogs for flushing out and killing. According to the Minister's clarification, one can use the dogs for flushing out only if one has a gun to kill the animal. How awful that would be.
 Regarding his second point about intention, he is right to say that it would be illegal if somebody went out and intentionally wounded a hare in order to chase it with dogs, which would, of course, be illegal and all members of the Committee would abhor such behaviour. None the less, in order to convict someone, one would have to demonstrate that they intended to wound a hare in order to chase it with dogs. 
 The definition of ''intent'' is extremely difficult. If a person were to go to court and say, ''I tried to shoot a hare but, unfortunately, I missed it. I clipped its rear quarters and set the dog on it in order to catch it and to kill it.'' A barrister would have to prove that that individual not only carried out that activity, but that they intended to carry it out by wounding the hare before setting the dog on it, which would be almost impossible to prove in court. 
Alun Michael indicated dissent.

James Gray: The Minister shakes his head, but the courts may well have a lot of fun with that issue. Individuals will be incentivised to do precisely what I have described for no reason other than defects in the Bill's drafting.
 The Minister should not have chosen to make exceptions. He should not have said, ''I know about coursing and am going to ban it. I know about stag hunting and am going to ban it.'' He should have said, ''Fine, any activity using dogs against mammals, whether it is deer hunting, hare coursing, rabbiting, ratting or mink hunting, must involve an application to a registrar, who will balance up cruelty and utility.'' Had he not sought to be clever by bringing in exemptions for the sake of buying off some of his hon. Friends, that conundrum would not be in the Bill. 
 As the Bill is drafted, it would ban a legal activity and incentivise criminals to carry out an activity that we all dislike. Amendment No. 94 would correct the Bill's bad drafting.

Tony Banks: I have a straightforward question for the hon. Gentleman. If the Bill had contained all those species under the proposed registration system, would he have supported it?

James Gray: We have made it clear throughout that we support the principle of cruelty and utility being applied to all those activities for registration; indeed, I have tabled an alternative licence. We are content for those activities to be licensed, registered and controlled in one way or another, which has been our line all
 along. The definitions of cruelty and utility used in the clause are wrongly worded, but we accept the principle of registration and control through licensing of one sort or another, which is why we are working so hard to correct anomalies in the Bill.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the Bill's structure. Does he accept that it is essential for good law for legislation to be clear and enforceable? The clarity provided by someone either passing the test, in which case they are doing something legitimately, or failing the test, in which case they are breaking the law by undertaking the activity, will help considerably in enforcing the legislation. He is wrong on the anomalies that he sees in the Bill. He has misinterpreted a series of clauses that are not under consideration.

George Stevenson: I am very much aware of that point.

James Gray: That was a long, beautiful intervention from the Minister in which he clarified one extremely important point; good law must be absolutely plain. We must know precisely what a person is doing. Their offence must be clear to all and they must then be arrested. That is precisely what is wrong with the Bill. At the moment, if one takes part in some forms of coursing one breaks the law. Under the Bill, if one took part in some forms of coursing one would need to check whether one had registered correctly; more extremely, one could take part in a coursing activity without any reference to the registrar. In that case, when thugs were found illegally poaching on an estate, there would be no way in which the courts knew whether they were breaking the law. The Minister says constantly that the Bill will make it easier to convict illegal hare coursers. The reality is precisely the opposite; it will make that a great deal harder.
 From the point of view of trying to produce a worthwhile Bill, the Minister should get away from his determination to treat hare coursing and stag hunting differently from foxing, rabbiting and ratting. He should accept that the broad principle—utility versus cruelty—is good and allow the registrar, the tribunal and ultimately the High Court to make up their minds on hare coursing in the same way as they will make up their minds on foxhunting. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 20.

Question accordingly negatived.

James Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in
clause 8, page 3, line 12, after 'that', insert— 
 'in the opinion of the landowner or occupier'.

George Stevenson: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 13, in
clause 8, page 3, line 12, leave out 'it is likely' and insert 'the licensee intends'.

James Gray: The Minister has failed to listen to our very powerful arguments about why the tests of utility and cruelty should be considered together rather than sequentially. Equally, he has failed to listen to our arguments for considering hare coursing and stag hunting under the same general tests. Undeterred, we move on. [Interruption.]

George Stevenson: Order. There is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing. Please allow the hon. Member to make his comments.

James Gray: Thank you, Mr. Stevenson.
 We move now to consider the precise definitions that the Government have used in the Bill for utility and cruelty. This is the central part of the Bill. We are not discussing the way in which the definitions are applied—there are flaws in that, which we shall discuss during the clause stand part debate—but the precise definitions and use of the words ''utility'' and ''cruelty''. We believe that the Government's definitions are fundamentally wrong in a variety of ways and that the Government's amendments, which we shall discuss later this morning, make the situation worse rather than better. 
 If the registrar is to have a sensible opportunity to consider whether an activity has utility or is cruel, he must be given a reasonably broad definition of the terms. It was interesting to hear the Minister say that he knows perfectly well that hare coursing is cruel and must therefore be banned. Of course, in saying that, he acknowledges that foxhunting, for example, is not cruel, because it is to be considered by the registrar. The very fact that he includes the hunting of fox, hare and mink in this part of the Bill shows that he has accepted, at last, that such activities are not necessarily cruel and may have some utility. 
 Amendments Nos. 14 and 13 seek to clarify the precise definition of utility in clause 8. The first two groups of amendments are, perhaps, the least important of our amendments on the definition of utility. However, as the Bill is drafted, the registrar must make subjective judgments as to whether an activity is useful and whether it meets one of the six or eight tests that are listed. The amendments seek to give him a way of assessing that, and would, perhaps, give him a way of escaping the subjectivity of the test. 
 However, one major problem with the Bill as drafted is that it gives the good gentleman the registrar—a professional or civil servant with no view on the matter—a series of the most extraordinarily difficult decisions to take on his own head. He will not be given guidance by this House, the Bill, the Minister or anybody else on the hierarchy of cruelty, which we discussed last week, or on the way in which utility will apply. He will be left to his own 
 devices, to a large extent, to decide what is cruel, what is useful and how those concepts balance up. The amendments seek to help him on that. 
 We feel that the utility and cruelty of particular activities vary from place to place across the country. In some places, the use of dogs to chase foxes, for example, may have huge utility. I suspect that it does in most places, but doubtless it will be argued that it has less utility in other places. Some amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, who is no longer in his place, suggest that he thinks that foxhunting has utility in areas higher than 500 m. That is in an amendment that we will discuss later. In other words, he acknowledges that, under different circumstances, in different parts of the country, some activities may have greater or less utility or cruelty. However, under the Bill as drafted, the registrar will be required to apply the same principles to the same activity, whatever the local circumstances. 
 To take mink hunting as a useful example, in some places, the setting of traps to catch mink—although it is not something that I like—might be useful and easily done. However, in other places it can be reasonably argued, as is becoming increasingly clear, that using dogs is the only way to catch mink because of the terrain and features such as the riverside. There may well be a particularly utility, in some parts of the country, in using dogs to catch mink. If the registrar forms one clear opinion on whether mink hunting fulfils the utility and cruelty tests, he may make the wrong decision on that for a certain part of England. By applying a general rule across the nation, he might drive himself into a corner and subject himself to a judicial review, or even to High Court discussions. 
 The amendments would allow the registrar to apply different rules in different parts of the country, depending on how the application is framed. The best way to do that will not be for the Government to say, ''We can tell you, Mr. Landowner or Mr. Farmer, what is best for you'' but to allow landowners and farmers to decide for themselves whether there is cruelty or utility in their activities when they apply to the registrar. 
 The two amendments together would change the clause to read: 
''The first test for registration is that in the opinion of the landowner or occupier the licensee intends to make a significant contribution to the prevention or reduction of damage''.
 It might be that 
''in the opinion of the landowner or occupier the licensee intends''
 to use dogs to achieve those aims. 
 That seems to me to be eminently reasonable. The landowner would then be inviting the hunt in. Perhaps, as a farmer, he might have a problem with predation on sheep or poultry. Incidentally, to clarify a point touched on last week, several farmers have been in touch with me to say that they have a problem with foxes preying on calves. I was briefly tripped up on that point last week, but there is evidence of predation on calves by foxes. A farmer might have a problem with too many hares or with too many mink affecting the fish in his river. 
 Whatever his problem, it would then be for the farmer to decide how to deal with it. He might decide to bring in his friends to shoot the animals in question. He might decide to ignore the problem and hope that it will go away. He might decide to use his own dogs to deal with it, or to bring in the local hunt. Such an intensely local decision will vary from one part of the country to another and it seems to me only sensible that the registrar should be allowed to take account of local views on how important a certain activity is. Only local people, with knowledge of the landscape in question and of the pest that they are seeking to eradicate, can say whether the use of dogs will be useful there. 
 Amendments Nos. 14 and 13 would allow the local landowner to have some say on whether there was utility in the use of dogs. That seems to be an eminently sensible amendment and I commend it to the Committee.

Rob Marris: There are two interpretations of amendment No. 14. One is that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire does not understand the law. That may be so, but I heard him tell the Minister during the last Division that he had asked Queen's Counsel to look at the Bill, so I discount that interpretation.
 The second interpretation of the amendment is that it is a deliberate attempt to drive a coach and horses through the utility test. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said when moving the amendment, it would put in the Bill a test that is, in legal terms, subjective, not objective. Were the test objective in legal terms—I say this as someone who practised law for many years—it would state, ''in the reasonable opinion of the landowner''. 
 If amendment No. 14 were accepted, a landowner or occupier could say to the registrar, ''I think that hunting will make a significant contribution to the control of predation on my stock and my land.'' He may have only one calf on his land, but under the amendment, the registrar would have to say, ''My conclusion is that the landowner or occupier honestly believes that the utility test is passed. Clearly it is a load of nonsense objectively, but I, as the registrar, have no option but to move sequentially to the so-called cruelty test.''

James Gray: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the unfortunate farmer has only one calf on his land and it is being attacked by foxes, he may have a doubly important reason for seeking to deal with the pest by using dogs? He may have even more reason to do that than a farmer with a larger stock.

Rob Marris: The landowner may have an honest opinion. If the amendment were to make sense legally—I am not referring to the politics of it—it would say, ''in the reasonable opinion of the landowner''.
 As I said in my opening comments, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has got the law wrong; I believe that he is deliberately trying to drive a coach and horses through the utility test.

Lembit Öpik: Am I correct in understanding that if the amendment included the words, ''in the reasonable opinion of the landowner'', the hon. Gentleman would support the amendment?

Rob Marris: I am dealing with the amendment that is before the Committee and suggesting to my hon. Friends a very good reason for voting against it. I believe that it is a deliberate wrecking amendment.

Lembit Öpik: I understand the point about the word ''reasonable''. It is not good enough simply to avoid the question that I asked. Would the hon. Gentleman support the amendment if it included the word ''reasonable''? It is unreasonable to avoid that question because we are trying to make good legislation.
Rob Marris rose—

Lembit Öpik: I will give way. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is disagreeing not with the spirit of the amendment, but with the specific phraseology.

George Stevenson: Order. I am not minded to allow debate on words that are not in an amendment. Hon. Members may make their arguments in ways that are in order, but it is not in order for the Committee to speculate on words that are not in the amendment.

Rob Marris: I would not support the amendment if it included another word, because it would not need to. It would lay a registrar open to judicial review if he or she did not take into account the opinion of the landowner.

Lembit Öpik: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Stevenson. I was trying to get to the bottom of the matter because there will be an opportunity to table an improved amendment on Report. I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, and we have a difference of view. Having discussed the change in its entirety, I think that there is a strong reason explicitly to respect a landowner's perspective in the Bill. That is why I have a degree of sympathy for the amendment, even as it stands. It acknowledges something that is not the subject of controversy in the Committee, namely that foxes are a pest. Implicit in the amendment is the idea that landowners are in a good position to make such a judgment. I am not as cynical as others—

Andrew George: I disagree with the point about foxes, but my hon. Friend may have missed the earlier debate in which it was pointed out that foxes are not always pests. Foxes are always predators and can occasionally be pests. Does my hon. Friend accept that this is a wrecking amendment in that it refers to only one landowner? For hunting to take place, the opinion of a large number of landowners needs to be sought, unless a hunt operates in an area where there are a few landowners with very large estates, which is not the case in my constituency.

Lembit Öpik: The Middle Way Group does not seek to explore the mind of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire or to question his motives. I am considering the amendment as it stands and determining whether it makes sense.

James Gray: I would not want the hon. Gentleman to try to read my mind; let me spell out what I am
 thinking. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) is right: if a farmer did not want the hunt on his land, the hunt would not go on to his land. The amendment would allow a landowner to make a representation about hunting only on his land, not anywhere else.

Lembit Öpik: Since we are being careful to ensure that the Bill is as clear and explicit as possible, it seems reasonable to enshrine in the clause the landowner's right to make a representation.

Alun Michael: I am extremely surprised by the contribution made by the hon. Gentleman. If he plans to support the amendment, he is moving a long way from the idea that the evidence in particular circumstances should be tested against the two principles that are set out in the clause. The amendment would throw out of the window the idea of using evidence as the basis for decision making; it would allow variations across the country on the basis of landowners' opinions. In other words, whether activities could be undertaken would depend not on evidence, but on taste.
 It has been suggested that landowners should have the right to make representations; well, they do. A landowner could come forward as an applicant and say, ''I need to control the pests on my farm and estate. Here is the evidence of the nuisance that we are suffering and here is the method that I want to use.'' If he thinks that he can satisfy the registrar that there is utility, that the benefit spelt out in clause 8(1) exists for him as a land manager and that there is no reasonable means available of achieving the same benefit with less likelihood of suffering, he has the chance to make his case. The Bill gives farmers and land managers the opportunity to make their position clear, on the basis not of simply expressing an opinion, but of showing the evidence on which that opinion is based.

Ian Cawsey: I agree. Does the Minister agree that we have heard Opposition Members saying that hunts will never go on land without the owner's permission? Therefore, they will not seek registration unless the landowner has been consulted, in which case the amendment is completely useless. The landowner should be the first person to be consulted, even before registration.

Alun Michael: I take my hon. Friend's point. If the applicant were to be an individual or organisation other than the landowner, that sort of evidence would be extremely relevant to the application. In response to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), I point out that landowners could choose to apply because of the need to control pests affecting their livestock or crops, and that opportunity is open to them.

Lembit Öpik: To save time, I reassure the Minister that I am not particularly obsessed with the amendment, not least because the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) made a materially important point about the phraseology. I am concerned about something about which the Minister also sounds concerned. I want to ensure that the landowners can make representations.

Alun Michael: The Bill is absolutely clear on that point. I am glad to be able to persuade the hon. Gentleman. I also accept that it is important to consider whether one form of activity is preferable to another on the grounds of whether it fulfils the test of utility, and whether it is a cruel activity. Lord Burns clearly concluded that, when undertaken competently, lamping involves less suffering than hunting with dogs.

James Gray: With a rifle.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, seeks to reinforce Lord Burns' point. He made it clear that the competence of the way in which the activity is taken out is germane to the question of whether it is preferable. I accept that entirely.

James Gray: The point that I was making from a sedentary position, which I probably should not have done, is not so much to do with competence as with the weapon used. Lord Burns specifies that lamping with a rifle may or may not be less cruel than hunting with dogs, but lamping with a shotgun is crueller, almost by definition.

Alun Michael: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I think that Lord Burns was saying that, in particular circumstances, comparisons can be made between methods as to whether they are practical and whether they involve more or less suffering. Lord Burns suggested that those judgments need to be made.
 There may be variations, as the hon. Gentleman suggested in his opening remarks, on the question of whether an approach is practical—whether it can be undertaken in particular circumstances. That is the judgment that the registrar or the tribunal has to make on the basis of the evidence. That evidence can then be challenged by a designated animal welfare organisation. The Bill is set up to allow such questions to be asked and to ensure that they are answered on the basis of evidence and the clear principles set out in the clause.

Gregory Barker: The Minister raised the issue of lamping. We all accept that that would be demonstrably more effective only with a high-powered rifle. Does he accept that in many areas of the countryside with a dispersed population, such as East Sussex, there are very few areas that a hunt goes across where one is out of sight of residential accommodation? Local residents would be extremely concerned if there were an increase in the use of high-powered rifles at night.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman refers to one set of circumstances. Of course, judgments have to be made. The Bill sets out judgments on utility and cruelty, and there are also issues of safety, the competent use of weapons and whether the right weapon is being used. Those are the sort of judgments that must be made, but the tests mean that, in cases where someone applies to undertake hunting—to use a dog or group of dogs in pursuit of a mammal—the judgments are objective tests. First, does the practice have utility, as defined in clause 8(1)? Secondly, is there a means available—it is clear what that means—
 that is less likely to cause suffering? That is the test in clause 8(2).
 As the Bill stands, the registrar and the tribunal must be objectively satisfied by the evidence put to them before the activity is registered, and, as I said, that evidence can be challenged by a designated animal welfare organisation. Therefore, the applicant, whether it be a landowner or someone else, has the chance to make the case and have it examined by the registrar or tribunal, who will reach a conclusion. The amendment would throw that evidence-based approach out of the window and say, ''Let the landowners make up their own minds.'' That would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. Of course a landowner is entitled to hold a view and to put forward evidence and argue the case, but it must be in the context of the clear principles of the Bill and of evidence being examined and tested. 
 The hon. Member for North Wiltshire asked in his opening remarks whether local views should be considered. Local evidence should be considered. That is different from simply asking an opinion. It is not a question of having an opinion poll on whether an activity should be allowed, but the evidence must show that it is the least cruel way of achieving the utility. That clarity is the strength of the Bill. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have understood that. If he does understand it, the amendment is mischievous as it is intended to undermine the purpose of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West suggested. 
 Amendment No. 14 would remove the decision-making ability from the independent registrar and allow the landowner or occupier to decide whether an activity has utility. No one denies that landowners and occupiers are well placed to take decisions about how their land is managed, how they undertake their activity and how they run their business, but that decision is not unfettered. 
 To take another example, a landowner may decide that building a new barn on his land is the best way to store his crops properly, but the local authority would decide whether to grant him planning permission to do so, based on the farmer's application and any objections from interested parties. That surely is the right way for decisions to be taken.

James Gray: I am astonished to hear that a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department responsible for farming, has ignored the fact that an application by a farmer to build a barn is exempt from planning permission.

Alun Michael: A number of activities are exempt. The Bill contains exemptions. We shall come to them in due course.

Rob Marris: I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister made a slip of the tongue. He was referring to construction regulations.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right. He is as helpful as ever.
 Again, it is open to a farmer to take decisions on animal husbandry, which may have considerable implications for the protection of stock against predation. That is open to the landowner. It is a matter for the farmer to decide. 
 Parliament has made clear its will that cruelty associated with hunting be dealt with. That test, which must demonstrate that the activity is necessary and not cruel and that no method is available that will achieve the objective without the likelihood of causing suffering, is the one on which the Bill is based.

Tony Banks: I have received plenty of letters from landowners and farmers, and I am prepared to let the hon. Member for North Wiltshire see them—[Interruption.] He can see them. I do not make up my so-called facts, as he seems to do. The farmers say, ''When there is a problem with a fox, we go out and shoot it''. It is as simple as that and nothing in the Bill would prevent them from doing so.

Alun Michael: I understand my hon. Friend's point entirely. That sort of comparison will be able to be tested under the Bill and will depend on evidence. I agree that many different opinions are expressed, some of them along the lines of those in the correspondence that my hon. Friend just mentioned. Under the Bill, it is the evidence that must be satisfied—rather than opinion—to make such comparisons, and both sides will be balanced.
 Amendment No. 14 is unacceptable. Amendment No. 13 would make the decision-making process much more subjective. To satisfy the utility tests, the proposed hunting should be likely to prevent serious damage. If accepted, amendment No. 13 would require the registrar to establish simply that the licensed hunter intended to prevent such damage. A person might intend to achieve a certain outcome, however unlikely the prospect of achieving it. He might claim to have such an intention, but that intention must be open to objective scrutiny. Will his activity achieve that intention? Is it the right means to provide the useful outcome intended? Intent alone should not always be justification for allowing an activity.

James Gray: The Minister is making a very fine point indeed. Amendment No. 13 would remove the words ''it is likely'' and replace them with ''the licensee intends''. That would make the provision much tighter. The amendment would allow someone, under certain circumstances, to use dogs for a certain purpose if they intended to reduce serious damage, whereas the Bill says merely that they could do so if that were ''likely'' to reduce serious damage, which is entirely subjective.

Alun Michael: I do not accept that. Tests of intention introduce something that is difficult to measure. It is the outcome and the activity that are being tested. We should be asking whether there is a greater likelihood of suffering, whether the activity is cruel and whether it meets the objectives in clause 8(1). We need to ask those questions to reach an objective decision on whether an activity should be allowed to take place.

James Gray: I fear that the Minister has made another of his inadvertent errors. He says that this subsection allows the registrar to judge whether it is likely that an activity will cause cruelty, but it does not. Subsection (2) does that. The words ''it is likely'' or ''intends'' refer specifically and solely to whether environmental improvements will come about as a result of the activity. I hope that the Minister will accept that he has made a mistake.

Alun Michael: No. For someone to have an intention is not enough to show that a utility is created.

James Gray: The Minister referred to cruelty.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman says that I referred to cruelty. Yes, I was spelling out how the two elements of the test hang together. That is why they need to be sequential. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants to undermine that. He has made it quite clear that he is not interested in the sequential approach, but that is central to the Bill. We first ask whether an activity has utility and will produce a beneficial effect along the lines outlined in clause 8(1). We then ask whether that activity is cruel. The second part of the test determines whether there is a likelihood of greater or less suffering, by making comparisons.
 I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Amendment No. 13 would damage the Bill and I resist its inclusion.

James Gray: During a brief and interesting debate, the Minister made several interesting interventions. He seems to have admitted, without any question, that local variations in circumstance may well lead to different conclusions about the means by which a pest is controlled—to use others' words rather than mine. He has accepted that local variations are possible and that in some places a particular practice might be the best way of achieving an aim, whereas that might be best achieved through other practices in other places.
 That is an important admission, not least because when the registrar system is up and running—I hope that it will not be, but let us assume that that will happen—according to the Minister the registrar will be allowed, under Pepper v. Hart, to take different decisions about different applications in different parts of the country. Hunting with hounds might continue on one estate but not on a neighbouring one, if the arguments advanced for it were less strong. That is an interesting admission. No presumption is made, and no clarity given, of whether one activity is more or less cruel or useful than another. That will be a matter on which the registrar will reach a conclusion. 
 Another reason why the Minister does not like the amendments, is that he says that it is important for the tests to be objective. The registrar must have absolute clarity to decide whether a particular activity has utility or is cruel. If that were the case, I believe that I would go along with the Minister. If the Bill gave absolute clarity and allowed for objectivity, if it gave the registrar precise guidance as to the Government's thinking on which activities are cruel and which are useful, if the Minister had accepted the notion of the hierarchy of cruelty, which we discussed last week—for example, whether lamping with a shotgun or with a 
 rifle is more cruel—and if the Bill laid down clear definitions and distinctions, we just might go along with it and say, ''Fine, Mr. Registrar, we know precisely what decisions you will make and on what basis.'' That is not the case, however. The Bill leaves a huge amount of decision making to the subjective opinions of the registrar. The amendments would tighten it up so that we can make it clearer to the registrar what he is expected to do. 
 The third useful intervention from the Minister was his comment that if the amendments were agreed, we would be dealing not with utility and cruelty as he has defined them but with the taste of the landowner. To me, it seems extremely sensible to allow a landowner to decide which method of pest control he uses on his own land. That is precisely what he does as regards pesticides and a variety of other agricultural practices. 
 At present, the farmer makes up his mind, using his own taste and discretion, on the precise means by which he deals with pests. For example, many farmers would never allow hunting with dogs on their land under any circumstances whatsoever. They shoot foxes, as the hon. Member for West Ham correctly said. People do not like snares, but many farmers use them. There are many ways to deal with pests. It is a matter for the individual taste of the landowner. He takes the difficult, subjective decision about which activity is more cruel. We want to allow discretion and taste to apply for the registrar as much as for anyone else.

Rob Marris: I should correct the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate that the words are not his; they came from my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and me. However, if we are talking about pest control, it is not for the farmer to decide whether he uses paraquat, DDT or 245T—they are banned substances. Therefore, pest control is not simply a matter of the farmer's taste.

James Gray: I fear that I have not followed the hon. Gentleman's argument. It is true, with the sole exception of the Government, that it is illegal to use poison to kill foxes. That is absolutely correct. However, the farmer may decide whether he lamps by night or shoots by day, whether he uses a shotgun or rifle or whether he uses snares or traps. For example, the hon. Member for St. Ives told us about the box trap that his cousin designed.
 The farmer may use a variety of different methods to kill foxes. It is entirely up to him how he does so. He uses his taste and discretion in deciding what applies to his farm, or what he likes or dislikes. The amendments would allow the registrar to do the same. 
 If the Minister is saying that the registrar will be empowered to take account of differences between one farm and the next, one piece of landscape and the next, one area and the next, it will be important for him to visit every farm for which an application is made. Otherwise, how on earth will he be able to judge the local circumstances, terrain and differences? If he is to take account properly, I presume that he will be making visits not only to every farm but to every piece of land on which, for 
 example, an individual courser intends to go coursing. There will be few corners of England that the registrar will not be required to visit. If decisions are referred to the tribunal, it will also have to be out on the road for some time. That highlights the bureaucratic nonsense at the heart of the Bill. There is no way in the world that the registrar and/or the tribunal can reach a sensible conclusion within a reasonable time frame. The only way one can bring in individual, local differences in the application of pest control, as Government Members would like us to call it, is by allowing local knowledge, which is held by the farmer and the landowner, to be usefully applied. The landowner should be able to say, ''Here are the local circumstances. I like hunting. I apply to be allowed to do it on that basis.'' It should not be up to the registrar; it should be up to the farmer.

Alun Michael: Briefly, the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated yet again that either he is being mischievous or he has not understood the Bill's structure. He suggests that the Bill is bureaucratic at the precise point at which it is not bureaucratic. The registrar and the tribunal have to be satisfied, and it will be for the applicant to demonstrate that they meet the requirements of clause 8. If there are local differences, the applicant will have to show that they are relevant because the decision will be based on evidence. I am surprised that, at this stage, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the Bill, to the extent that he expressed some surprise that there could be variations in relation to circumstances. It is a central element of the Bill that the registrar will apply the principles of utility and preventing cruelty on a case-by-case basis taking into account the particular conditions in the area in which it is proposed to hunt. The registrar will have to be satisfied that those conditions are relevant.
 Previous decisions and directions by the tribunal will guide the registrar, but that will not prevent them making decisions on a case-by-case basis, having regard to relevant local conditions. Finally, the registrar will take decisions based on an objective assessment of the evidence put forward by the would-be hunter, whether or not—as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said—that is a landowner or a farmer, and the prescribed animal welfare body. That is what the Bill is all about.

James Gray: The one question that the Minister failed to answer was whether he expects the registrar and the tribunal to visit any of the locations.
Alun Michael indicated dissent.

James Gray: The Minister does not expect the registrar or the tribunal to visit the locations in question, which demonstrates that the test is wholly subjective. The registrar, sitting in his ivory tower in Smith square, will somehow decide whether upland hunting at a particular location in Wales should be allowed. If the Bill is to have any legitimacy, it is reasonable for the registrar and the tribunal to go out to the relevant bit of countryside.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 20.

Question accordingly negatived.

Alan Whitehead: I beg to move amendment No. 187, in
clause 8, page 3, line 12, after second 'is', insert 'pest control'. 
 (1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) hunting is pest control if and only if it is'.
 My remarks on the amendment will be brief because we have had a substantial debate on many of the issues relating to pest control and how the Bill deals with it. 
 The amendment does what amendment No. 131 did, with one difference, to which I shall refer in a moment. It applies explicitly the implicit purpose of clause 8. In other words, hunting after the Bill is passed will be permissible only as pest control. Even then, one would need to demonstrate that it was the least cruel method, having established in the first place that such pest control was necessary. 
 We have previously discussed what pest control means. Indeed, a helpful discussion with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire established that it is control and not eradication. However, new subsection (1A), which would be introduced by the amendment, makes a difference to many of the subsequent amendments that I had originally tabled to try to make the wording consistent throughout the Bill, following the change to clause 8. 
 Subsection (1A) would mean that a number of the subsequent amendments that are still on the table would not need to be selected, because the subsection defines hunting for the purpose of any activity that stems from the clause. Therefore, it achieves the object of a number of my amendments, by distinguishing between hunting as historic, prior to the passing of the Bill, and pest control, possibly using dogs, subsequent to the passing of the Bill.

Lembit Öpik: I wanted to ask the Minister about consistency. If he were willing to reply by way of an intervention, I should be grateful. We had a long debate about consistency earlier. Will he seek to ban the killing of rabbits with dogs if the purpose is overtly sporting? I ask him that because I am back to the concern about universality. If the amendment went through, it would explicitly remove all sporting elements from the registrar's considerations.

George Stevenson: Order. I took that to be an intervention. [Interruption.] I am grateful for guidance from a sedentary position, but I like to decide these things for myself if at all possible. As I took it to be an intervention, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test has the Floor.

Alan Whitehead: I was in the process of placing the seat of my pants on my chair. During that process the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire intervened and, therefore, like the ruling in the panel game ''Just a Minute'', it counts. The hon. Gentleman was absent, for honourable reasons, from the debate on amendment No. 131 when I asked whether one could separate recreational pleasure from the pursuit of pest control. It was clear in that amendment, as it is in amendment No. 187, that the pursuit of mammals with dogs should be permissible only as pest control and in terms of utility. Therefore, the tribunal would consider pest control when it heard an application for any form of pursuit of wild animals with dogs. I have set out that there is not a further test that people must not enjoy it. Rabbiting would fall into that category; that is fairly explicit.
 I have also mentioned that I am dealing with the Bill as it stands; I cannot anticipate what other hon. Members might do in relation to future amendments. If amendments were agreed, it is possible that we would have to revisit other areas for consequential purposes. However, we are not in that position; it is purely hypothetical. I seek to amend the Bill as it stands.

James Gray: I do not intend to delay the Committee very long because we had a reasonable discussion on this issue on Tuesday. The Conservatives oppose the amendment for two reasons. First, even if one did want to restrict the use of dogs for hunting, which is the aim of the Labour party, the amendment does not necessarily help one to do that. Under the Bill, unless we are able to amend it, there would be severe restrictions on the use of dogs for hunting, if it were allowed to continue at all, anywhere in the nation, which many of us doubt. Even from the point of view of the abolitionists, the amendment does not add much.
 Secondly, the amendment has three disadvantages, which I mentioned briefly last week and which I will mention again to refresh the memory of Committee members. First, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire correctly says, if the amendment were agreed, it would be impossible to expand the definition of utility and, in particular, to include the words ''sport and recreation'', which is what we seek to do in an amendment. We will try to argue that there is utility in sport and recreation. That principle is admitted in the Bill. One of the utility purposes that it mentions is the preservation of birds for the purpose of game shooting; the only purpose of game shooting is, of course, sport and recreation. 
 The Bill admits that there is some utility in sport and recreation and we will argue that that should apply to hunting with dogs, as well as to game shooting and fishing, which have already been acknowledged by the Minister. If the amendment 
 were agreed, it would be much harder to argue that; that is one reason why we do not like it. 
 Secondly, we are arguing very successfully—even if we are not necessarily winning the votes—that clause 8 should include not only foxhunting, mink hunting and so on, but the hunting of all species of mammals. In particular, the registrar should have the ability to make up his own mind on the cruelty and utility associated with stag hunting. We will return to that debate. Very few people would argue that stags are necessarily pests. We will argue in favour of stag hunting for all kinds of reasons. Pest control is not central, although a small element of pest control may be involved, and it is certainly not the main reason for arguing in favour of stag hunting. We want to argue that stag hunting should be considered under the cruelty and utility tests, but if the amendment were agreed and utility were narrowed to pest control, stag hunting would be excluded from being considered by the registrar. We very much believe that the registrar should consider it. 
 Thirdly, narrowing the definition of utility even further so that utility becomes pest control tends to ignore the fact that one of the great utilities of hunting with dogs is species management. There is great utility in the preservation of the fox population, but also the deer population and a variety of other mammals. We have discussed that on several occasions previously. Allowing hunting with dogs has the utility of species management. 
 The party opposite seems to believe that pest management means killing as many animals as possible, but we take the view that species management is exactly the opposite. Good species management would mean a minimalisation of the pest control necessary. Good species management means that there are not so many pests, and the number of animals killed would be fewer. The intrusion of the words ''pest control'' into the rubric of clause 8 would make it harder to argue in favour of species management, which we believe to be such an important utility. 
 The amendment in question and the others to which it relates are unnecessary even from the standpoint of the abolitionists. From our standpoint, they restrict the discussion that we will have subsequently on the precise definition of utility and therefore, we shall resist them.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I am sure that this is a point of order. During his remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire suggested that the passage of the amendment would inhibit widening the utility test. This afternoon, I hope that we will come to the amendments that have been selected that are related to that test. The amendments are very important to all Opposition Members. Can you confirm that those amendments will still be debatable this afternoon, even if the amendment is passed?

George Stevenson: Yes, I can confirm that. As I understand it, my co-Chairman has ruled that we are not prepared to speculate from the Chair on what
 might happen to further amendments, but that they will be discussed.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to you, Mr. Stevenson. I am sure that that reassurance will be welcomed by all Committee members who seek to ensure that all issues of concern are dealt with.
 The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) is constructive because he is trying to ensure that the Bill is clear for the lay reader as well as the expert. I take that point from the earlier debate. There was a danger in an extensive list of amendments that we might confuse two things; the activity of hunting and the purpose it seeks to achieve if it is to satisfy the utility test. That fault does not lie in his amendment. In other parts of the Bill, it may be appropriate to amend consequentially if the purpose is referred to, but his amendment makes the purpose of the activity clear. 
 Sometimes, there is confusion over terminology. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire referred to pests as if there were danger in the definition relating to deer. Deer can be a pest if they cause serious damage to crops or to trees in a particular area. Organisations such as the Forestry Commission have difficulties with deer, as do other land managers and farmers. The control of number is related to pest control in that way. What wild mammals do in a particular area determines whether they are pests.

James Gray: To clarify my remarks, I was not for a second suggesting that deer were not a pest. Coming from the highlands of Scotland, I know what a great pest they can be under certain circumstances. We will not necessarily seek to argue that stag hunting should be allowed because it is the best means of pest control. We shall argue that it should be allowed for its recreational and sporting advantages, among other things, although pest control may be a side benefit.

Alun Michael: I was not trying to imply that the hon. Gentleman was conceding some part of his later argument. We will discuss deer hunting in a later debate. My point was that it is the activity of specific animals that may lead to them being pests. That is why evidence is so important in the judgment on whether control is needed.
 I have considered seriously the needs of land management and a variety of claims that certain activities are useful to farmers and land managers. If they can show that those activities are useful and that control is necessary, they must provide evidence to show that they meet the second part of the test in clause 8. The amendment clarifies the intention of clause 8 that the first test for registration for the proposed hunting of wild animals is that it constitutes pest control and contributes to controlling the activities to which we have just referred.

Lembit Öpik: For clarity, is it fair to say that the Minister's presumption throughout is that recreational benefits are not a primary utility and that that is why he supports the amendment, when others, probably including myself, ascribe a higher value to recreation? If so, it would be useful for the record to establish that formally.

Alun Michael: I thought that it had become absolutely clear during earlier debates that if the purpose of an activity is utility and it makes a contribution along the lines suggested in clause 7, it may still have utility, but it must satisfy the least- suffering test. That is absolutely clear and why it is tough but fair. Reference has been made to bishops. When I discussed with them the way in which a utility test might be formulated, one said, ''You are not saying, are you, that simple enjoyment for human beings could be part of the test of utility, because that would imply that an activity involving suffering could be undertaken just for personal enjoyment?'' I believe that he got the point as clearly as the hon. Gentleman now has about what is in the test. The definition of pest control in the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test is those activities presently set out in the utility test in clause 8(1)(a) to (h). I appreciate that, during later debates, hon. Members may try to expand that concept. We shall discuss that when we come to those debates.
 The individuals who may be affected by the Bill should welcome the move to clarify the law and my hon. Friend's attempt to use straightforward language. I welcome the amendment.

Alan Whitehead: Briefly, I emphasise that pest control is not simply going out to try and eradicate as many animals as possible. It is a question of controlling an animal when it is a pest and it has been established that that is not always so. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham told us, a number of farmers have said that when a fox is a pest they go out and shoot it.
 On utility, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, I cannot anticipate whether some people may 
 want to widen the test. I am taking utility to be as defined by the Bill as drafted. I am grateful for your clarification, Mr. Stevenson, that the amendment will not restrict a later debate on utility, because that is important. 
 Species management is a subsidiary claim for hunting, not a scientific aim, as we established in our previous debate. For all those reasons, I ask the Committee to support the amendment. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 19, Noes 8.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.